AuthorTopic: Shoe Parts (Read 18677 times)

I disagree. There is no other indication that a Bushnell surveyor was ever there and I haven't heard a rational explanation for why a Bushnell surveyor would modify a sextant box to look like it had been used merely as a receptacle or why he would abandon it and a shoe in the middle of nowhere.The explanation that the box was modified and brought to the site by a laborer is far superior. The box would only be useful to a laborer as a receptacle to carry stuff in and we know that laborers were on the site prior to Gallagher's discovery of the skeleton.

Those are naturally bare areas of coral rubble, not water, inland of the shoreline vegetation. The Coast Guard station was not marked as swamp.

The box was found by natives, not by gallagher. how do we know where it was found in relation to the bones?? All we know is that it was close enough to the search area that when it was found they associated it with them. given the survey crew was "close" to that area and at the very MOST walked within 100 feet of it why is it improbable? do we know the condition of the box during it's trip on all these island surveys? had he dropped the case at some point and broken internal parts lose? there really isn't much inside one of these boxes anyway. it still had the reversing octant in it... why would a laborer have kept it, only to throw it away when bringing it to Gallagher?? also, I'm not bringing anything about shoes into this discussion. strictly the box

I'm not saying it can't be a laborer, I'm just saying I don't see how it CAN'T be left behind by the surveyor. heck, they were there for months, maybe the surveyor repurposed it after it broke.

ok, they do look remarkably like water in that picture though. I'd have bet money on it!

The box was found by natives, not by gallagher. how do we know where it was found in relation to the bones?? All we know is that it was close enough to the search area that when it was found they associated it with them.

No, the box was found by Gallagher and it was Gallagher who assumed the box was associated with the bones.

do we know the condition of the box during it's trip on all these island surveys? had he dropped the case at some point and broken internal parts lose? there really isn't much inside one of these boxes anyway.

Do you know anything about how the internal components of a Brandis sextant box are anchored?

it still had the reversing octant in it...why would a laborer have kept it, only to throw it away when bringing it to Gallagher??

You mean the lens from an inverting eyepiece. The inverting eyepiece is held in the box by the internal structures that weren't there. The most logical explanation is that the box was gifted to the locals with the inverting eyepiece present. They tore out and discarded eyepiece and the internal structures, keeping only the lens because it was useful for starting fires. The guy who had the lens told Gallagher he had thrown it away.

to what extent?? do you know?? no description is given besides as a carrying case. what makes the box modifiable by a native but not by navy personnel stuck on an atoll with limited resources and lots of time??

Do you know anything about how the internal components of a Brandis sextant box are anchored?

I have never held one in my hands by it appears to have small blocks of wood screwed to it in key places to support the sextant. to my eye, they do not look overly sturdy that they cannot break during heavy use.

The most logical explanation is that the box was gifted to the locals with the inverting eyepiece present. They tore out and discarded eyepiece and the internal structures, keeping only the lens because it was useful for starting fires. The guy who had the lens told Gallagher he had thrown it away.

I HIGHLY disagree that a local would have left the box if they had found or been given it especially if they deemed it useful enough to modify it. also, are you saying the individual discarded the eyepiece but kept the lens and lied to Gallagher about it?? That flies in the face of what has been said about the people in general and their relationship with Gallagher.

now, if it was navy personnel who was using it for carrying his lunch and keeping the rats away from it I can see him not going back for it if he is done working on that part of the island.

No, the box was found by Gallagher and it was Gallagher who assumed the box was associated with the bones.

It doesn't sound like Gallagher found it to me per his telegram:"Your telegram No 2. No sextant was found.Only part discovered was thrown away by finder but wasprobably part of an inverting eyepiece."

Gallagher's first telegram to the Resident Commissioner on Sept. 23, 1940"Some months ago working party on Gardner discovered human skull – this was buried and I only recently heard about it. Thorough search has now produced more bones ( including lower jaw ) part of a shoe a bottle and a sextant box."

Secretary Vaskess had the mistaken impression that a sextant had been found. When the bones and other stuff arrived in Fiji in April 1941 he buried Gallagher, "Your letter of 27th December remains and sextant box received but not the sextant. Did you forward sextant?"

to what extent?? do you know?? no description is given besides as a carrying case. what makes the box modifiable by a native but not by navy personnel stuck on an atoll with limited resources and lots of time??

You may be on to something. He could use it to carry a spare pair of shoes.

I have never held one in my hands by it appears to have small blocks of wood screwed to it in key places to support the sextant. to my eye, they do not look overly sturdy that they cannot break during heavy use.

I have held several in my hands. Some internal fixtures are glued on. Other are attached with screws. The glued structures could conceivably be jarred loose if the box was dropped repeatedly. The screwed-on structures could only be removed with a screwdriver.

The most logical explanation is that the box was gifted to the locals with the inverting eyepiece present. They tore out and discarded eyepiece and the internal structures, keeping only the lens because it was useful for starting fires. The guy who had the lens told Gallagher he had thrown it away.

I HIGHLY disagree that a local would have left the box if they had found or been given it especially if they deemed it useful enough to modify it.

To repeat a favorite mantra - Never say "would have." If you're sure say "did." If you're not sure say "might have." "ould have" is a guess masquerading as fact. We know nothing about the work party's reaction to finding the skull except that they buried it and didn't continue far enough to find the skeleton.

also, are you saying the individual discarded the eyepiece but kept the lens and lied to Gallagher about it?? That flies in the face of what has been said about the people in general and their relationship with Gallagher.

Said by whom? My impression from the sources I've read and talked to is that, especially in the early days, the laborers were afraid of Gallagher and only communicated with him via an interpreter.

If the sextant was lost/irreparably damaged/stricken-off before the Bushnell even arrived at Gardner then the box would be available to be modified for use to support the survey party. It's not like the Navy would have standard equipment package for land surveys, so some improvisation for the task would be need. After the survey the box would be left-behind junk. Also explains Gallagher comments about the box being modified.

This could also explain the "gidgies" or artifacts 2-6-S-03A and 2-6-S-03B. Being improvised on-ship, maybe as part of the box modifications, would explain their being made with American-made wood screws.

No, the box was found by Gallagher and it was Gallagher who assumed the box was associated with the bones.

It doesn't sound like Gallagher found it to me per his telegram:"Your telegram No 2. No sextant was found.Only part discovered was thrown away by finder but wasprobably part of an inverting eyepiece."

Gallagher's first telegram to the Resident Commissioner on Sept. 23, 1940"Some months ago working party on Gardner discovered human skull – this was buried and I only recently heard about it. Thorough search has now produced more bones ( including lower jaw ) part of a shoe a bottle and a sextant box."

Secretary Vaskess had the mistaken impression that a sextant had been found. When the bones and other stuff arrived in Fiji in April 1941 he buried Gallagher, "Your letter of 27th December remains and sextant box received but not the sextant. Did you forward sextant?"

The telegram you quote is Gallagher's reply.

your argument regarding this first telegram holds no water as we already know that the benedictine bottle was not found by Gallagher.

It's not like the Navy would have standard equipment package for land surveys, so some improvisation for the task would be need. After the survey the box would be left-behind junk. Also explains Gallagher comments about the box being modified.

The Bushnell was outfitted and deployed as a survey ship. Gardner was one of many islands being surveyed. The survey work was carried out by hydrographic engineers (probably civilian contractors) assisted by Navy personnel and locally-recruited natives. I think it's safe to say the survey parties were well-prepared for their mission.

This could also explain the "gidgies" or artifacts 2-6-S-03A and 2-6-S-03B. Being improvised on-ship, maybe as part of the box modifications, would explain their being made with American-made wood screws.

Good point. I agree that the "gidgies" were modifications to the sextant box that probably fashioned aboard ship. Their presence at the Seven Site suggests that the internal structures were torn out of the box at the site - but why and by whom?

your argument regarding this first telegram holds no water as we already know that the benedictine bottle was not found by Gallagher.

Do we? On Sept. 23 (the date of the telegram) Gallagher knows that a bottle was found by the work party that found the skull and he has asked Wernham in Tarawa to intercept Koata and retrieve the bottle. He says the bottle was found near a skull that might be Earhart's. The language he uses in his telegram to the RC - "Thorough search has now produced more bones ( including lower jaw ) part of a shoe a bottle and a sextant box." implies that the bottle was found during his "thorough search". Maybe it was. Try this:• In April, the work party (with sextant box used as lunch box) finds the skull and nothing else. They bury the skull. Sextant/lunch box gets left behind.• Late August or early September, Gallagher arrives, hears about the skull and makes his thorough search accompanied by Island Magistrate Koata. They find the skeleton, woman's shoe part, the bottle, and the sextant box. Koata leaves for Tarawa to get medical treatment. After Koata has left, Gallagher discovers that he has absconded with the bottle and telegrams Wernham.

your argument regarding this first telegram holds no water as we already know that the benedictine bottle was not found by Gallagher.

Do we? On Sept. 23 (the date of the telegram) Gallagher knows that a bottle was found by the work party that found the skull and he has asked Wernham in Tarawa to intercept Koata and retrieve the bottle. He says the bottle was found near a skull that might be Earhart's. The language he uses in his telegram to the RC - "Thorough search has now produced more bones ( including lower jaw ) part of a shoe a bottle and a sextant box." implies that the bottle was found during his "thorough search". Maybe it was. Try this:• In April, the work party (with sextant box used as lunch box) finds the skull and nothing else. They bury the skull. Sextant/lunch box gets left behind.• Late August or early September, Gallagher arrives, hears about the skull and makes his thorough search accompanied by Island Magistrate Koata. They find the skeleton, woman's shoe part, the bottle, and the sextant box. Koata leaves for Tarawa to get medical treatment. After Koata has left, Gallagher discovers that he has absconded with the bottle and telegrams Wernham.

yes, we 100% KNOW that the bottle was not found by Gallagher per the sept. 23rd telegram

Please obtain from Koata a certain bottle alleged to have been found near skull discovered on Gardner Island. Grateful you retain bottle in safe place for present and ask Koata not to talk about skull which is just possibly that of Amelia Earhardt.

Gallagher

so, why would we expect that the box must be found by him? unless he found another bottle never before discussed?

Please obtain from Koata a certain bottle alleged to have been found near skull discovered on Gardner Island. Grateful you retain bottle in safe place for present and ask Koata not to talk about skull which is just possibly that of Amelia Earhardt.

Because he said he found it during his "thorough search" and, unlike the bottle (as you have pointed out) he never said he didn't. In the absence of contradicting documentation we have to take him at his word.

Because he said he found it during his "thorough search" and, unlike the bottle (as you have pointed out) he never said he didn't. In the absence of contradicting documentation we have to take him at his word.

given the way he speaks about the inverting eye piece it makes me think that was found before he got involved in the bones. that he, Gallagher never touched it. i would put forth that the box and the inverting eye piece were likely found at the same time.

given the way he speaks about the inverting eye piece it makes me think that was found before he got involved in the bones. that he, Gallagher never touched it. i would put forth that the box and the inverting eye piece were likely found at the same time.

Maybe, maybe not, but it's looking more like the box was not brought there by the laborers.

The "part of an inverting eyepiece" is the key. I agree that Gallagher never saw it. The "finder" had to be one of the laborers. If Gallagher had laborers helping him with his searches, it's hard to imagine the finder finding something, throwing it away, and then telling Gallagher what he did. The part of an inverting eyepiece almost had to have been found the only time the laborers were there without Gallagher - in April when the skull and bottle were found. In September, Gallagher quizzes the laborers who found skull. They tell him that Koata found a bottle and took it with him to Tarawa, and one of them says he found a thing that he threw away. He describes the thing to Gallagher who decides it was part of an inverting eyepiece.If the part of an inverting eyepiece was there in April, so was the box whether the work party saw it or not.

If this reasoning is correct, some time not earlier than November 1937 and not later than April 1940, somebody left a Bushnell sextant box, and part of an inverting eyepiece, near the castaway's remains. If the inverting eyepiece was still secured in the box when the April work party was there, the "finder" may have ripped out the custom-made features that secured it in place (thus explaining the presence of the "gidgies").

This is interesting. The map below is a screenshot of a GIS of all the archaeological work at the Seven Site. I've posted out where the castaway's skeleton was found (as confirmed by the dogs in 2017) and the hole where the skull was buried. As you can see, the "gidgies" were found not far from the skull hole, suggesting that the sextant box might have also been in that area. It's about 20 meters and slightly downhill from the skeleton to the skull hole.

given the way he speaks about the inverting eye piece it makes me think that was found before he got involved in the bones. that he, Gallagher never touched it. i would put forth that the box and the inverting eye piece were likely found at the same time.

If this reasoning is correct, some time not earlier than November 1937 and not later than April 1940, somebody left a Bushnell sextant box, and part of an inverting eyepiece, near the castaway's remains. If the inverting eyepiece was still secured in the box when the April work party was there, the "finder" may have ripped out the custom-made features that secured it in place (thus explaining the presence of the "gidgies").

Sounds reasonable and I'll add:

Shortly after ripping out the gidgies and throwing away the eyepiece, a skull was found. The workers depart quickly, leaving behind the sextant box.

An interesting thread, and an important clue provided that the Sextant Box was from the Bushnell. Which leads me to an alternative hypothesis to explain some of the "7" site findings.

Suppose the Bushnell survey party on that part of the island did not leave the island every late afternoon to go back aboard ship. Because this particular crew was on the far side of the island, they stayed overnight at least one night near the 7 site. They knew this ahead of time, and brought a cask of water (chain and stopper), a Benedictine bottle, along with other items. They augmented their evening meal with clams found in the lagoon, along with birds, turtles, etc, accounting for at least one of the camp/fire sites. Having drunk the Benedictine bottle, they leave it behind. They inadvertently leave the Sextant box.

They fail to see/smell the prior camp/fire sites left by AE and the corpse/bones, easily enough explained by poor visibility through the bush and the survey was focused primarily on the lagoon and ocean shoreline, vice the interior portions of the island.

What I am proposing is that not all of the items purportedly ascribed to AE at the 7 site are hers, particularly the Benedictine bottle and the western style of clam openings---these may well be due to the Bushnell survey party. This situation is the classic archeological problem of just a listing of items found without proper context and location information.

Copyright 2020 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.